//I disagree. Isn't much of Egyptian chronology determined from finds in the pharoah tombs which were somewhat distant from their respective cities?//

Actually figuring which Egyptian city level existed at the same time as a find in a tomb depends chiefly on finding written evidence in both places, which often contradicts what archaologists expect. For example Pi-Ramesses monuments found in Tanis. Or the Sheshi seals found in the same place as Sobekhotep IV seals. As things stand right now, Avaris has a 150 year problem with radiocarbon dating.

//There is Late Bronze I pottery in the tombs which match pottery in the city.//

Where in the city?

Wood's article, comments...

8000 BC! Obviously he does not believe the Bible for one who claims to do so.

//The 1400 B.C.E, conquest would match the chronology derived from the Bible.// This date does not take the chronology of Judges and 1 Samuel seriously, or that in Acts 13. //in harmony with the Biblical narrative....// Siren song continues. Maybe the assumptions about bible chronology are wrong! I noted the reply with the 1558 date was given quick dismissal.

//based on pottery found in the destruction debris....// But what if the pottery dates are off? What if the pottery style came to the city earlier than assumed? What if the pottery fell into a lower level?

//...absence of Mycenaean ware...// I generally do not trust any method unless I understand it and the assumptions it makes. When I do understand it, then I find the flaws that show one cannot draw dogmatic conclusions from it. Generally citing as evidence something that your audience does not comprehend is the equivalent of saying believe me because I say so. It is the equivalent of appeal to authority. Wood's 8000 BC date shows that he disagrees with the authority he professes to follow.

Garstang vs. two witnesses Kenyon and Watzinger! And before she excavated anything. Apparently there is suff in Garstang's reprots that refute his dating.

//I became intrigued by a considerable amount of what appeared to be Late Bronze I (c. 1550-1400 B.C.E.) pottery he had excavated//

Can pottery be found in places where there was no city but only a village? Obviously yes. The place had a spring. The smallest of settlements would produce pottery.

//This was precisely the period Kenyon repeatedly said was absent at Jericho!//

But which layer?

//Cypriot bichrome ware – pottery decorated in two colors. Now known as a key indicator of Late Bronze Age occupation, this pottery, excavated by Garstang at Jericho, is just what Kenyon later looked for, unsuccessfully. //

So Garstang's result could not be verified!

//As fate would have it, Kenyon, who well knew the link of such ware to the Late Bronze Age, conducted her dig too far north of the eroded runoff to find any bichrome ware.//

Exactly, because digging in a area that was reworked by erosion would produce ambiguous results. Smart lady I should say.

//or had she been aware of Garstang’s finds...//

Why assume she wasn't? Garstang had her review his finding. Clearly she had to see all his reports. And why would Garstang not point out this late bronze pottery if he used it at all as a key for the dating?! He'd point here right to it.

//It showed up in erosional layers on the east side of the tell.//

Therefore provenance unknown.

//Evidently it originated in a large structure upslope, which Garstang referred to as the palace.//

Possibly Eglon's Palace.

//A simple, round-sided bowl with concentric circles painted on the inside (No. 2) is particularly important for dating Jericho’s City IV because such bowls were used only for a short time in the latter half of the 15th century B.C.E. //

But he does not say it was found in a city IV location. It is only important for dating city IV. Not good enough.

Hello all, The fall of Jericho is dated using 2 different means, namely: 1. the scarabs found in the tombs: 2. Late Bronze I pottery found: ---a. alongside the scarabs in the tomb ---b. inside the... more